3 ms·

I never claimed that Uber or Lyft coerced them to work, so I'm not sure where we disagree.

xyzzyz 6y ago
But if it's not Uber or Lyft that's coercing them to work for them, then putting more restrictions on their ability to work for Uber or Lyft is highly likely to end up harming them. The whole moral argument behind laws like AB5 is that it's Uber that's ripping off the drivers, who are helpless and powerless, and cannot do anything to stop getting short end of the stick. The legislature then decides that they should adjust the terms of the contract to be more fair in the legislature's opinion. However, this whole argument hinges on the question whether the drivers are in fact coerced or defrauded: if the drivers are free to quit working for Uber at any point, and yet they don't, how can you argue that they are being coerced by Uber to anything? Usually it pivots to the argument that it's the hard facts of social reality that "coerce" them to work, but then regulating Uber in particular seems unwarranted, because why is Uber singled out, instead of other options that are even worse, as shown by the fact that the drivers choose Uber instead of those even worse options? I think that the point of view of "social reality coercion" is also ultimately misguided as a tool to explain the political decisionmaking. Consider this: imagine California institutes UBI (and ignore for a while the question of how to pay for it). Do you think that California would also repeal all kinds of labor regulation, including AB5? That since the drivers, or waiters, or everyone else now has an option of just leaning on their UBI, and no longer be coerced to work by social reality, those regulations are now superfluous, and the people who don't like the deal presented by Uber or Amazon can just leave instead of taking it? I seriously doubt that it would happen. I think that the desire of government and the society to micromanage other people's lives is too great to resist, and the "coercion" is just an excuse to get moral justification for meddling in the deals other people make.
- james-mcelwain 6y ago
  > hard facts of social reality that "coerce" them to work, but then regulating Uber in particular seems unwarranted, because why is Uber singled out I'd agree that this is a more effective path than attempting to regulate Uber, but also do not think it's mutually exclusive with the view that Uber has exploitative labor practices, even if they are not directly coercing drivers to work for them. > I think that the desire of government and the society to micromanage other people's lives is too great to resist, and the "coercion" is just an excuse to get moral justification for meddling in the deals other people make. This only seems like a relevant argument if the sole purpose of UBI is to create some kind of deregulated libertarian society. I don't view deregulation and UBI as being intrinsically linked -- indeed I would prefer to see UBI and more regulation.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    > I'd agree that this is a more effective path than attempting to regulate Uber, but also do not think it's mutually exclusive with the view that Uber has exploitative labor practices, even if they are not directly coercing drivers to work for them. Right, but my point is that it shows where the priorities are, that it's not about actually helping people. > This only seems like a relevant argument if the sole purpose of UBI is to create some kind of deregulated libertarian society. I don't view deregulation and UBI as being intrinsically linked -- indeed I would prefer to see UBI and more regulation. That's exactly my point: some people just have a strong desire to have a say in everything. It's perfectly natural thing for human to wish for, the power to control everything. What we actually want as a society from our superiors who rule us though is to control things for our benefit, not to allow them to satisfy their power urge. When you say you want "more regulation", you most likely mean "more beneficial regulation", because I'm quite sure you can imagine all kinds of detrimental regulation that could be introduced (and if you're having trouble, just think of what kind of regulation your political opponents would introduce). To circle back to the Uber question, when you regulate the its relationship with its drivers, you need to ask yourself: who's benefiting? Who's losing? Is the regulation bringing surplus for everyone, or does it actually result in deadweight loss? If, for example, you require Uber drivers to be paid at least $200/hour, everybody loses, because hardly anybody is going to take the cab anymore, and we're all worse off. If you don't do this analysis, then the regulation becomes pure exercise of power, of the ability to control the world as you please. That's not what the society signs up for in representative democracy, and I don't think you really want more of that.
    - james-mcelwain 6y ago
      When it comes to Uber, it's more difficult for me to consider because I'm less sure of the social utility provided by the application, particularly when we take the massive unsustainable subsidies out of the picture. I think the entire question is distorted right now by the fact that they've been in massive growth mode for years so we don't actually know what the equilibrium of the gig economy looks like in many markets.
      - 6y ago

But if it's not Uber or Lyft that's coercing them to work for them, then putting more restrictions on their ability to work for Uber or Lyft is highly likely to end up harming them. The whole moral argument behind laws like AB5 is that it's Uber that's ripping off the drivers, who are helpless and powerless, and cannot do anything to stop getting short end of the stick. The legislature then decides that they should adjust the terms of the contract to be more fair in the legislature's opinion. However, this whole argument hinges on the question whether the drivers are in fact coerced or defrauded: if the drivers are free to quit working for Uber at any point, and yet they don't, how can you argue that they are being coerced by Uber to anything? Usually it pivots to the argument that it's the hard facts of social reality that "coerce" them to work, but then regulating Uber in particular seems unwarranted, because why is Uber singled out, instead of other options that are even worse, as shown by the fact that the drivers choose Uber instead of those even worse options? I think that the point of view of "social reality coercion" is also ultimately misguided as a tool to explain the political decisionmaking. Consider this: imagine California institutes UBI (and ignore for a while the question of how to pay for it). Do you think that California would also repeal all kinds of labor regulation, including AB5? That since the drivers, or waiters, or everyone else now has an option of just leaning on their UBI, and no longer be coerced to work by social reality, those regulations are now superfluous, and the people who don't like the deal presented by Uber or Amazon can just leave instead of taking it? I seriously doubt that it would happen. I think that the desire of government and the society to micromanage other people's lives is too great to resist, and the "coercion" is just an excuse to get moral justification for meddling in the deals other people make.

james-mcelwain 6y ago
> hard facts of social reality that "coerce" them to work, but then regulating Uber in particular seems unwarranted, because why is Uber singled out I'd agree that this is a more effective path than attempting to regulate Uber, but also do not think it's mutually exclusive with the view that Uber has exploitative labor practices, even if they are not directly coercing drivers to work for them. > I think that the desire of government and the society to micromanage other people's lives is too great to resist, and the "coercion" is just an excuse to get moral justification for meddling in the deals other people make. This only seems like a relevant argument if the sole purpose of UBI is to create some kind of deregulated libertarian society. I don't view deregulation and UBI as being intrinsically linked -- indeed I would prefer to see UBI and more regulation.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  > I'd agree that this is a more effective path than attempting to regulate Uber, but also do not think it's mutually exclusive with the view that Uber has exploitative labor practices, even if they are not directly coercing drivers to work for them. Right, but my point is that it shows where the priorities are, that it's not about actually helping people. > This only seems like a relevant argument if the sole purpose of UBI is to create some kind of deregulated libertarian society. I don't view deregulation and UBI as being intrinsically linked -- indeed I would prefer to see UBI and more regulation. That's exactly my point: some people just have a strong desire to have a say in everything. It's perfectly natural thing for human to wish for, the power to control everything. What we actually want as a society from our superiors who rule us though is to control things for our benefit, not to allow them to satisfy their power urge. When you say you want "more regulation", you most likely mean "more beneficial regulation", because I'm quite sure you can imagine all kinds of detrimental regulation that could be introduced (and if you're having trouble, just think of what kind of regulation your political opponents would introduce). To circle back to the Uber question, when you regulate the its relationship with its drivers, you need to ask yourself: who's benefiting? Who's losing? Is the regulation bringing surplus for everyone, or does it actually result in deadweight loss? If, for example, you require Uber drivers to be paid at least $200/hour, everybody loses, because hardly anybody is going to take the cab anymore, and we're all worse off. If you don't do this analysis, then the regulation becomes pure exercise of power, of the ability to control the world as you please. That's not what the society signs up for in representative democracy, and I don't think you really want more of that.
  - james-mcelwain 6y ago
    When it comes to Uber, it's more difficult for me to consider because I'm less sure of the social utility provided by the application, particularly when we take the massive unsustainable subsidies out of the picture. I think the entire question is distorted right now by the fact that they've been in massive growth mode for years so we don't actually know what the equilibrium of the gig economy looks like in many markets.
    - 6y ago